Scarlet - Native ISO

[Simon Shasha]

Hey guys, I've been trying to figure out what the native ISO for the Scarlet is - I was over on this page but couldn't seem to find it: http://www.red.com/products/scarlet#product-tech-specs

Does anyone know? Thank you

[Nick Wernham]

I believe it is 800, just like the Epic.

[Philipe Ratton]

The sweet spot is 800.
Edited, thanks Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

800 is the answer.

"Native" doesn't really have a meaning.

Graeme

[Stephen Wheeler]

The Raw records 320 Iso, but the sweet spot is 800 Iso. The MX sensor is the MX sensor whether its the RED one, the Epic, or the Scarlet.

[J Davis]

800 is the answer.

"Native" doesn't really have a meaning.

Graeme

what would be the correct term to use ?

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

ISO doesn't mean much in a system where the imager has a fixed, linear light response since there are many ways to build a gamma-corrected image from that data.

RED usually suggests their ISO800 setting's curve to be the best balance between highlight latitude and noise, which is usually what one wants out of a corrected image. Many people are happy with that default setting. As I understand there are also many ways to build your own look.

[Stephen Wheeler]

The idea is that the camera* is recording at 320. When you dial in 800 ISO you are boasting the image after it is recorded. So what is happening is you are exposing a 320 ISO sensor like it was 800 then bringing it up in post, so that you have equal protection in your highlights and your shadows. This has been discussed like a gibillon and a half time on red user.

* Edit Note: I had said sensor but meant camera.

[Graeme Nattress]

Noah's answer is good. Stephen, the sensor doesn't have a "native iso". If you go look up the definition of "ISO" there is no definition for a sensor as-is, and in terms of RAW recording the answer is "go ask the manufacturer what they recommend". We recommend starting at 800 and taking it from there.

Graeme

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

what would be the correct term to use ?

It's not the word that doesn't fit, it is the concept.

I think it would be interesting if manufacturers published basic sensor response data/graphs so we could compare their various imagers in a more meaningful way. Perhaps a table/ graph of 16bit values at the ADC vs luminance with noise range for each color channel? It always seemed weird to me that this was never standardized, we are stuck looking at differently corrected images from different cameras with many non-standard correction options available. This might give many people a much better idea of what a particular imager is capable of and how well various manufacturer's correction curves (or "ISO" settings) perform. Not to mention it would be an amazing starting point for matching cameras with custom LUTs.